Re: Pooling of resources
The good news about pooled resources is the "perpetual harvest" principle of open source software. Pooling in this sense is possible by all adopting jurisdictions gaining access to an open source work and benefiting from the enhancements thereof. LA County is a likely leader in the development and eventual deployment of a new CA certified for use voting system. That system is intended to be based on software that is open source. And all counties in CA would benefit from adopting it to the extent of their local requirements and needs.
Incidentally, for those readers unfamiliar, by "open source" we generally mean both the process of development of the software source code (the instructions that tell a device how to run an app or application), AND how that software is obtainable, distributed, improved, etc.
On the issue of licensing source code, once available, I have been engaged in software engineering and development for over 30 years, and things do move quickly, but I am unfamiliar with what a "certifiable General Public License" means other than to possibly refer to a license that recognized by an open source licensing governing body like OSI. And to that end, I absolutely concur. I am confident LA County's source code, once available, will be subject to an open source license that any jurisdiction can adopt.
But here is an important point: the commenter also asserts some need to be vigilant against some sort of self-empowering licensing schemes. While I am uncertain what exactly that means, I can venture a guess that it is a veiled reference to their misunderstanding of the need for an open source software license that can be readily accepted by local governments, who have procurement regulations that (unlike the federal government's procurement regulations) do not support all of the the terms and conditions of today'stypical open soruce license.
For instance, the TrustThevote Project has run into this in several jurisdictions around the country, and caused them to engage with the very best open source licensing lawyers inthe country... the same lawyers who brought you the license for the Mozilla FireFox web browser, for instance, to develop a "procurement-friendly" variation of the general public license scheme.
Two important points about that: 1] their license is, in fact, a qualified open source license under the OSI definition and further is a derivative or child of the Mozilla Public License, also an OSI compliant license; and 2] the license the TrustTheVote Project uses (and being adopted by jurisdictions seeking to deploy open source solutions that fit within their procurement regulations) has a very important clause that says if you are not a jurisdiction subject to procurement regulations that would prevent adopting a license (like the GPL), then the source code subject to the OPL license can be licensed using the GPL license. This alleviates the issue of licensing schemes altogether. And for anyone wishing to download, modify, or further distribute source code from the TrustTheVote Project who is not an elections jurisdiction, the OPL need not apply; the GPL will.
For those interested in this nuance of open source software in local goverment settings, there is an explanatory white paper along with the license itself available at the OSET Foundation web site (links are not permitted here).